The DA16-45 is an excellent lens with superlative IQ -- better than the DA*16-50 in fact. The DA17-70 is also good from all accounts. So get the cheapest one.

I do have to ask whether you really need such a beast? I find I hardly use it since owning the DA12-24. There's never any time I need to "fill" the focal range between 24mm and 50mm, except with a fast prime.

The Cosina macro is excellent IQ in a plastic build for little money. It is 1:2 but comes with an matched adapter for 1:1. But get the manual focus version as it's better (apparently - I do not own both). Not sure why you'd want autofocus for macro, especially in the 1:1 range.

In the ceremony itself there is less need for a wide lens. I used the DA16-45 in order to get a view of the entire church from the balcony, but other than that you need reach to get details at the altar and so on. I would say the 28-75mm zoom would serve you better, though 75mm may not be long enough depending on where you are allowed to stand.

At the reception, preparation of bride & groom, formals, etc. it is often necessary to get in close or cover lots of people in a scene. There I have used the DA12-24. Be careful though in group shots not to have people near the frame edge when shooting wide. It is not flattering!

Really, one could do the whole wedding with a DA12-24 and DA*50-135. And maybe a fast 50. It goes without saying that you need two bodies.

The old film cameras certainly had sometime to them, and not just the sense of history they now bear. Indeed, part of their magic is quite quantifiable. For me it comes down to the direct control one had over the photographic process. It was obvious when one cocked a shutter or opened an aperture, not to mention developed the image from the negative. This physicality is not only appealing but makes for better art since it requires a more intensive level of commitment.

With the current state of digital photography the bar to entry into the field has been lowered. However, I think one has to work harder to achieve an exceptional level, not to mention that the noise level is so much greater since so many more people are involved.

I still see some people making rather extreme claims for film. Even the talk of "discipline" etc. in this thread is not valid IMO. One can be disciplined with digital as well. In fact, this is "real" discipline, since it must come from within and not as an external constraint.

Me, I have darkroom material sitting around since I can't really claim our one bathroom for the task. The two women in the family might disagree!

But that is for 645 development. I simply wouldn't bother for anything as small as 35mm.

Well, that is true too.

My post was addressed to those who rail against digital. Perhaps it should merely have included a picture of a windmill.

I do not understand film fetishists. This is not because I do not appreciate the special qualities of film or the distinctive advantages once you get into larger negatives. After all, I started by shooting and developing my own film. But 35mm film has no advantages over digital, only a laundry list of problems: chemicals for developing, scratches, dust, expense, delays in processing etc.

If you want discipline in shooting, turn off your LCD. Turn on B&W mode. Whatever. Digital can do all this with ease, to suit any shooting style. It is flexible.

I do not shoot thousands of images. I take the time to only shoot those I want. Being able to review progress instantly means I shoot less wastefully, not more. Some might enjoy the crap-shoot of not knowing what you got for a week or two. But I am not a gambler. If you wish, you can hide away your full memory card for an equal length of time. This exercise should reveal just how artistically meaningless this quality of the film process is. It is simply a limitation of a particular technology.

As for tonality, grain etc. digital offers far more possibilities. I have often been asked what film I was shooting, based on the aesthetics of the finished image. This is not because I was trying to emulate anything in particular, but perhaps because I was at least trying to achieve a specific look.

Certainly one can get more out of medium format film than a cropped sensor digital -- but that is comparing apples to oranges. To be fair, stick to comparing the same size sensor/negative.

You are not wrong, but my point is based on optical design. For every stop you increase light the aberrations go up by a factor of nine. It becomes almost impossible to control these beyond a certain point, which is why very fast (significantly faster than f/2) lenses generally have all sorts of odd halo, coma etc. effects on top of their general softness. (Certainly some photographers like these effects and use them creatively, as I already mentioned.)

On top of this, the smaller sensor makes optimising the light pathway inherently difficult, as the density of photo-sites / pixels increases.

I fully understand that Pentax has decided to limit their lenses to around f/2.8 maximum aperture, though personally f/2 is more to my liking. Beyond this point I think one is fighting a losing battle. I simply don't think most people would pay the money for a highly-optimised digital-ready lens at f/1.4. (How many bought the DA*55?) not to mention that this would sacrifice the compact size that is a Pentax competitive advantage.

If one wants greater DOF control without sacrificing optical quality, the answer is a larger sensor.

(I say this as someone who owns not one but two f/1.2 lenses.)

I understand not everyone would agree with these points. I am just trying to guess the Pentax reasons from their approach, which has been quite consistent in the "digital era" (except for the DA*55).

It's true that faster than f/2 can produce some interesting effects, but these are gimmicks in the same way adding effects in PP is a gimmick. Some might like them for aesthetic reasons but it is hardly a reflection of true optics.

There is a lot more to good bokeh than a fast lens. I have lenses from Vivitar and Leica, to give two examples, which produce astounding bokeh at f/5.6.

It is apparent Pentax has little interest in making fast lenses and there are some good reasons why.

1. Higher attainable ISO values reduce the need for speed for the purposes of low-light photography.

2. Most shooters rely on auto-focus mechanisms that have a hard time past a certain aperture. Fast lenses equal more complaints about gear working poorly.

3. Viewfinder screens are optimised for f/2 or slower so manual focus is difficult or impossible any slower.

All this said, I have a hard time buying a lens that isn't f/2. Faster than that I find a bit gimmicky.